Apologists create ambiguity - Donald Trump is who he is

"Did Trump essentially say that he didn’t actually say the things we all heard him say? Did he actually try to deflect and normalize sexual predation, as ubiquitous jocular language intrinsic to maleness itself? Does he not actually realize that this is precisely how rape culture is maintained and perpetuated — through normalization? "- Charles M. Blow in NYTimes

Conservatives and especially fundamentalist Christians abhor ambiguity. As a matter of fact, ambiguity is often correlated with the work of the devil. "Screwtape Letters" are a perfect example of the evils of ambiguity, portrayed in classic litarature.

Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, for the same culture that abhors apologists and the ambiguity caused by them to continue to "grade Donald Trump on a curve", like he's on a high school debate team.

Donald Trump, "Barbarian at the Debate": New York Times opinion by Charles M. Blow

What the hell did I just watch in that presidential debate on Sunday night?

Before the debate even commenced, did a man who was just caught on a hot mike bragging about being a serial sexual predator who routinely assaults women by kissing them without their consent and grabbing them by the vagina actually organize a news conference with the sexual abuse accusers of Bill Clinton?

Did he actually plunge the debate into a reality television swamp of tawdriness and tackiness?

By the way, at least one of these women was part of a group of accusers whom Donald Trump in 1998 called “terrible” and a “really unattractive group.” In that same interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, Trump said of Bill Clinton: “He is really a victim himself.”

Did Trump actually use those women, whom he had chastised and demeaned for their looks (something he is wont to do because he is a sexist and a cretin), as a political prop?

Did Trump actually sit those women in the debate hall and use them to attack Hillary Clinton for her husband’s behavior?

By the way, in 1999 Trump told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Clinton was “a wonderful woman,” “really a very terrific woman” who has “been through more than any woman should have to bear, everything public.”

But last night did he actually add to that public burden and call Clinton a lying “devil” who “has tremendous hate in her heart” to boot?

When the moderator Anderson Cooper said to Trump, “You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?” did Trump actually respond: “No, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think you understood what was — this was locker room talk”?

Did Trump essentially say that he didn’t actually say the things we all heard him say? Did he actually try to deflect and normalize sexual predation as ubiquitous jocular language intrinsic to maleness itself? Does he not actually realize that this is precisely how rape culture is maintained and perpetuated — through normalization? Does he not register that that answer should scare the daylights out of every woman and shame every man who knows full well how aberrant and not at all normal those comments were?

Furthermore, did Trump actually suggest that, as president, he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate his political opponent and would jail her? (this was his lowest and qualifying moment!)

Did Trump actually suggest that he indeed had not paid federal income taxes for many years, as many had speculated, because of a $916 million loss he reported in 1995? And then, did he actually try to pin his not paying taxes on Clinton, saying:

“A lot of my write-off was depreciation and other things that Hillary as a senator allowed. And she’ll always allow it, because the people that give her all this money, they want it. That’s why.”

Did Donald Trump actually throw his running mate Mike Pence under the bus on live television?

The moderator Martha Raddatz asked the candidate what he would do about the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo, Syria, and said to Trump:

“I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in airstrikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.”

Did Trump actually say: “O.K. He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.”

Did Raddatz have to respond with what many were thinking: “You disagree with your running mate?”

Throughout the debate, did Trump actually use his physicality as a tall, rotund man to menace Clinton as he stalked and prowled about the stage like an agitated animal, grimacing and sniffing, glowering over her back and getting uncomfortably close when she was answering questions, seemingly trying to unnerve and intimidate his female opponent?

I was gobsmacked at the whole spectacle and incredulous as to whether I was actually hearing and seeing what I was hearing and seeing. Could this really be happening, or was I losing my mind?

Yes, all of that happened, Charles. You are not crazy. Trump’s performance, however was. (crazy!)




Forget all the post-debate “it was a draw” foolishness you may have watched and read. It wasn’t. Though Trump stood tall, last night his campaign continued to crumble. Indeed, an admittedly Democrat-heavyCNN/ORC poll of debate watchers showed a clear victory for Clinton, with 57 percent saying Clinton won, as opposed to 34 percent for Trump, although most said Trump exceeded expectations.

We have to stop grading this man on a curve, against abysmal expectations. The curve is how he has been allowed to bend the truth, to bend decency, to bend decorum, to bend America’s moral fiber.

I try not to give predictions, but if I had to give one after this week, with that lascivious tape and this bizarre debate, this would be it: Trump is toast.

Twitter (@CharlesMBlow), or email me atchblow@nytimes.com.


By the way, athletes have disavowed Trump's wrong minded statements. (What does "locker room talk" have to do with the war on terrorism?)